Home MTA Economics Chart of the Day: Let’s talk about debt, baby

Chart of the Day: Let’s talk about debt, baby

by Benjamin Kabak

Debt payments are making up an ever-increasing amount of the MTA's annual budget. Image via RPA/ESTA.

A few weeks ago, the Regional Plan Association and the Empire State Transportation Alliance dug deep into the MTA’s budget projections and voiced their concerns over the MTA’s ballooning debt balloons. For long-time transit watchers, the agency’s debt isn’t a new storyline, but the numbers are increasingly heading upwards. The system is saddled with more debt than every before, and there’s no sign of relief on the horizon.

Yesterday, Streetsblog excerpted parts of the presentation which I’ve seen as well, and the picture isn’t a pretty one. According to the MTA’s own metrics, debt payments will account for over 17.5 percent of its operating budget by 2014, and according to the RPA and ESTA, the real total based upon the MTA’s sleight-of-hand accounting may be closer to 23 percent. Labor costs will fall to around 53 percent of expenditures.

“Every year,” Noah Kazis wrote, “more and more money that might go toward paying bus drivers, buying fuel, cleaning stations or keeping fares affordable is instead spent on debt service. Even over a period when pension costs will have risen by a billion dollars per year, it’s debt that is chewing up the MTA’s budget.”

Besides the debt, though, the other area of growth concerns pensions. In 2003, pension spending accounting for under five percent of the MTA’s operating budget, but by 2014, that number will rise to around 9.36 percent. That type of growth is unsustainable and worrisome. The MTA cannot become a pension and debt organization while running a subway system, but by 2014, over 30 percent of its operating budget will be tied up in those two areas.

So why so much debt? Kazis explains:

That debt is the outcome of decades of diminishing state support for public transit. After a major infusion of capital under the Hugh Carey administration, Governor Mario Cuomo cut all direct support for the MTA capital program. Though Cuomo found other revenues for the capital plan, notably by repurposing Westway dollars for transit, George Pataki just let those zeroes stand and put the cost of the capital plan on the MTA’s credit card, starting the debt build-up in earnest. Pataki also started using dedicated transit funds to pay the state’s commitments to the MTA, essentially double-dipping on those funds and costing transit almost $200 million a year.

The 2009 passage of the payroll tax helped the MTA’s budgets significantly — it is now the agency’s largest dedicated revenue source – but Albany’s decisions to kill congestion pricing and bridge tolls meant that the MTA still had to borrow heavily to pay for repairs and mega-projects like the Second Avenue Subway.

The result is a massive run-up in debt. Though the MTA spent only $848 million on debt service in 2004, according to RPA, it is projected to spend more than three times as much, $2.67 billion, in 2014. Debt alone will eat up 17.6 percent of the MTA’s operating budget by 2014; worse, RPA says that an alternative calculation shows the 2014 debt load at 23.1 percent of the operating budget.

Talk about debt often causes other people’s eyes to glaze over. They just want to know that trains will run frequently and on time, that the fare won’t go up and that there will be a seat for them on the next train. But these debt payments will impact the MTA’s ability to provide service. The authority can cut employees; they can cut trains and buses; they can raise; but they cannot cut debt. Without better and more concrete investment in the system, debt will balloon, and the rest of us — the riders and commuters who depend upon the subways — will lose out.

You may also like

9 comments

SEAN September 8, 2011 - 12:46 pm

Paraphrasing Dick Chaney “debts dont matter.” But of course they matter & this proves it.

Reply
Christopher September 8, 2011 - 2:10 pm

They matter for different type of groups differently. They matter far less for the Federal government which has the authority tax and print money than they do for an individual agency which lacks that ability. Just like it debts matter more for your home budget than they do for a nation-state.

Reply
John September 8, 2011 - 3:12 pm

I assume the other 50% not represented on the graph is mostly payroll?

Reply
Chris September 8, 2011 - 4:05 pm

It was riders and commuters who depend upon the subway that benefited from cheap fares during the years when the MTA’s operations were being funded through new indebtedness, so it’s hard to be sympathetic. Presumably if people want trains that run frequently and on time, they will just pay for them, the same way that if they want a new TV they go to the store and pay for it.

Reply
nycpat September 8, 2011 - 6:14 pm

And the people and institutions that own the land and real estate-did they not benefit?

Reply
Chris September 8, 2011 - 6:44 pm

Sure, them too. And they will also suffer when the higher fares needed to cover debt service in the future make it more expensive to get to their properties.

Reply
JD12 September 9, 2011 - 9:00 am

They did, which is why the regional mobility tax is fair and needs to stay in place as part of a long-term solution.

Reply
Larry Littlefield September 8, 2011 - 4:23 pm

“The MTA cannot become a pension and debt organization while running a subway system.”

That decision has already been made.

The Metropolitan Transporation Authority is the Metropolitan Debt Service Authority.

The Department of Education is the Department of Early Retirement.

Reply
Fitch downgrades MTA revenue bonds :: Second Ave. Sagas September 8, 2011 - 4:56 pm

[…] « Chart of the Day: Let’s talk about debt, baby Sep […]

Reply

Leave a Comment